Veteran GOP Sen. Specter switches parties

A Pennsylvania Senator wants to switch from being a Republican to a Democrat because, "I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans:

Frank and Bartels

I do not think that Frank is entirely correct in some of the assumptions he makes about red and blue states here, but as for his argument that culture outweighs economics in politics, I think he is correct. You have to consider where Kansas is located, what kinds of people are living there and what they do for a living when you consider this argument between Frank and Bartells.

I’ll first talk about the assumptions and comparisons he makes and of red and blue states…
Correct me if im wrong, but isn’t Wisconsin a blue state? I have lived here my entire life, and when I look at all of the things he says about blue states, some of things I do not believe to be true. Both Kansas and Wisconsin are in the Midwest, WI was a blue state and KS was red. We are sort of similar, we like beer, guns, hunting, farming, and nascar. Now onto the arguments.

First of all, I would say that Wisconsin is a fairly humble state…what do we have to brag about? Our dairy farms, beer, cheeses and terrible professional sports teams? I do not see the people that live here as “snobs” or as people who like to “show off”. This is something I see in California (which I realize is a blue state as well), but not here.

How does he even measure that Red states have a better relationship with God than blue states do? Isnt that a little bit subjective? How can one tell if one state is more religious than the other just based on partisanship? As a Marquette alum, I can tell you that it is a campus full of Catholics who get up on Sundays hungover as hell to go to mass. Now if that’s not devotion to your religion then I don’t know what is. In fact, many of my teachers there were Catholic priests, most of whom were, liberals.

“A Red stater is courteous, kind and cheerful” According to the census bureau (http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank21.html) Out of the top 10 states with the highest crime rates, 7 of them were Red, southern states. I don’t think that’s very courteous, kind and cheerful. I also know that most of you, like myself, hold the stereotype of the shotgun totting redneck southern farmer.

“A Red stater is a regular, down-home working stiff, whereas Blue staters are always some sort of pretentious paper-shuffler” I thought farmers got up at the crack of dawn to milk cows, bail hay, and tend to crops until the sun went down? I didn’t know they shuffled paper all day.

On to the culture aspect of things…we have talked this entire semester about political parties, candidates, candidates image and how those factors are major contributors to who people vote for. People in Kansas are farmers. They wear ranglers, flannel shirts, straw hats and live on the ranch all day similar to the cowboy George Bush himself. They probably saw George Bush as someone they could relate to.

In terms of culture, values and issues being more important than money when it comes to politics in Kansas, I agree with this to an extent. Generally farmers are more conservative in their politics, even if they are from the poorest county in the nation. Their values and beliefs are what form their political ideologies, we learned that as well this semester. Conservatives, especially those from Kansas, are bound to have Conservative views on issues such as abortion, gun control, taxes, womens roles, immigration and the like. And because they are hard working farmers, they want lower taxes and believe in the ability to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, they don’t want government hand outs. I think where Kansas and Wisconsin differ and the reason why one is a blue state and the other is a red is because of their culture.

Death of the Republican Party!?

This article I stumbled across when I was looking for articles to post today. It talks about the extreme divisions of the GOP and their failure to do anything to resolve its divisions and problems. The Republicans need a new leader to bring this party back together.

My Political Party

A political party is an endogenous institution shaped by ambitious political actors such as the office seeker and the officeholder. Politicians use these parties as instruments to achieve their goals. The success of a political party, as Aldrich claims, depends on the electorate, the institutional setting, and the historical ideas, values, conditions and development of the party. Collective action and collective choice problems resolve out of these variables. When a party cannot gather support from the electorate, or politicians of a certain party do not agree on the problems that need to be solved, a party eventually becomes divided an unsuccessful. If the Republican party would die out, a different party would emerge because it would not make sense for a new party to mirror the old Republican party. In today’s world, I am guessing an independent party would come to the front or a more moderate party would emerge. I would create a political party that lies in the middle.

If I were to create a party, I would create a party the lies in the middle. Aldrich claims that parties are tools to gain interest and if both parties aim to do this, the party that appeals more to the public’s views should win. Distinct ideological differences between parties splits supporters, why not lie more in the middle to work in conjunction with those both liberals and conservatives. A moderate political party eliminates diversity, would allow for bi-partisan cooperation (as member of my political party would consist of both Democrats and former Republicans), and would represent and connect the public better to their government. That way I could serve the increasing number of people who call themselves independents, and gain support from Republicans who left their own party, more liberal Republicans and more conservative Democrats. Widening my spectrum of support rather than sticking to one political side, leaving the extreme Democrats up to their own devices in their own party.

As far as my political ideology, I do not want to end up like the Whigs have members of my party leave because I do not have nothing to offer them. Aldrich makes it evident that ideology of my new party is extremely important because it is what will pull my candidate away from the other side of the political spectrum. Based off my own political beliefs, the political ideology of my party would contain practical solutions to problems, we would keep an open mind when solving issues hearing many different sides to the problem. We generally would be more Conservative on economic issues, but more Liberal on personal and social issues. Therefore, I would be the leader of the party and members of my party would be a mix of Conservatives and Liberals to reach the middle ground on issues.

That leaves us to our platform. What types of issues do we stress and where do we stand on them? Going off of a list of the major issues of parties, I will briefly say where my part would stand. My party wants to restore the basic ideas that made the United States of America great. Restore and reinforce the basic values of Liberty, Security, Equality, Civic Duty, Individual Responsibility, and Democracy. We need to retain the feeling that we are proud to be American citizens and eliminate the anti-American attitude. My party would insist on honesty and integrity for our leaders, that no one is above the law. In terms of foreign policy, I think that we should keep our noses out of everyone else’s business, that would probably help our relations with other nations rather than hinder. Help only when needed and defend only from internal and external threats as appropriate. With that, we need to take care of the needs of America first and help or give aid to those in need after we have our situation under control. Who are we to help when we are facing one of the greatest depressions in our nation since the 1930s. In order to take care of ourselves and improve our well-being education, technology and science will be stressed. I also feel that today our government is too powerful, my party would emphasize Federalism where states have their own powers and Federal Government has its own distinct powers. Freedom of religion is needed, abortion should be a women’s decision and men should have no say in it because they simply cannot understand the stresses of the issue on a woman, Social security should remain but keep its funds to fund the program and not other programs. Americans need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps like my grandfather and parents did when they came here from Yugoslavia (now Serbia) with $35 in their pockets, welfare is sometimes needed but I feel it is abused in today’s society.

I guess I could have a variety of voting blocs that are important to citizens today. The economy, foreign relations, social security, abortion, education would gather groups to support my party.

I really do not know how successful my party will be. A successful political party is a strong, well financed, professional organization, has loyal officeholders and has partisan relationships among the branches of government. Funding is always an issue, but because I am a new party support and loyalty will be a problem that I have to overcome. Also, most people consider themselves a Republican or a Democrat so I do not have partisan relationships or loyalty immediately, however, I am hoping to gain the loyalty of those who considered themselves Republicans before the party crapped out. I would have to change peoples ideology however, and that is going to be a difficult task in itself. Republicans would have to consider themselves Moderates or Independents.

My party’s role in Congress and if I am lucky enough, the White House would take time obviously. A new party needs to develop trust with the electorate, however, being a more moderate party I would have a large number of supporters immediately. Spatial politics claims that people will vote for the policy that is closest to their ideology or belief. In theory, spatial politics would benefit my party because I offer a better policy or stance on an issue than someone who is on one political extreme because I lie in the center, attracting more voters from either side of the middle.

ANOTHER article for you guys this week...Superprez!?

Sorry I have links to so many links this week, but politics recently is just fascinating. So much is going on and people continue to have this image of the President that he is Superman. I know we are still in the "Honeymoon" period and I have completely nothing against the President, for he has a lot on his plate and has an incredibly huge job to do, but I thought this perspective was quite different than from what I have seen in the media. History and political science is all about perspective, here is another perspective for y'all to enjoy.

Obama's Electoral Mandate

When we talk about elected mandates, we must first be clear on what an electoral mandate is. I was not exactly sure how to define the term so I did a bit of digging and research on the concept. The term “mandate” is the authority given to someone to do certain things, or to undertake an assignment, or to serve or function in a specific role. In an article I found, it described a mandate in the political context by simply meaning, the authorization to act given to an elected representative. The article also pointed out that a mandate also assumes that both the giver and receiver of the mandate are more or less quite clear about the nature of, and the conditions attaching to the mandate or authority vested in the receiver. Obama campaigned on the mandate for “change” and now as our president he has a mandate to fix our economic situation.

Elections carry messages about problems, policies and programs that can be implemented to change the current political system. President Obama campaigned and sent messages about the economy that was plain to see and affected the entire electorate. His campaign convinced the electorate that he would turn his messages and initiatives into action if he was given the permission, through being elected, to put his messages into action. Also, during his election many thought, including Nancy Pelosi, that Obama’s mandate was not just for change, but for cooperation and bipartisanship as well. And the electorate hoped that finally they would receive a government that would function for the good of the people by governing from the “middle” and not from the liberal “left. I would definitely say that during his campaign he had an electoral mandate to change and reverse some of the right wing policies and attempt to fix some of the problems that the Republican rule of government has brought us over the past eight years. Under President Bush we have gotten ourselves into a war that continues to drag on, our economy is the worst it has ever been since the Great Depression, oil prices have gotten out of control, corrupt politicians have made more than a few headlines are just to name a few. Mandate for a change and to remedy the problems indeed, and it seems that Americans have no problem with it.

Now that President Obama is elected, he is under a lot of pressure from the electorate to fulfill expectations to bring this change; he still does have an electoral mandate. The electoral is expecting change and a resolution to our poor economic situation are they are expecting President Obama to do something drastic to help out the economy. However, we have seen already just with the passing of his economic stimulus package that “change” brings a new period of conflict within U.S. politics. His mandate of trying to run a bipartisan government has been difficult, as most of the Republicans do not agree with the package nor his $3.6 budget in his efforts to remedy the economic situation, he still is trying to gain citizen support and keep our spirits high. The article that I chose for this week describes his progress, future and current problems, and when we will see the benefits of his initiatives and policities. It explains his efforts quite simply. He is trying to fix problems caused by the Bush administration to refinance the banks, fix the economy, and handle foreign policy issues, as well as trying to implement his own policies and initiatives such as health care, stem cell research, education and clean energy. I would say he definitely has a mandate by reversing eight years of problems and bringing about change with his own policies. So by the given definition above that a mandate gives a representative the authority to act and serve out a specific role with the idea that the representative and electorate are clear about the initiatives, conditions and goals, I would say yes, Obama has an elected mandate. People wanted change, and they are getting it.